Get Audit Results

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail by specifying the return content (pass/warn/fail statuses, messages, recommendations, tips). It does not discuss side effects or edge cases, but none are expected for a read-only fetch with a single required parameter.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and then expands on the output. No wasted words or repetition beyond the necessary.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simplicity (one required parameter), the presence of readOnly annotations, and the detailed description of the report contents, the description is complete enough for an agent to successfully invoke the tool and understand what it returns. No output schema exists, but the description fills that gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already fully documents the 'hash' parameter with the description 'Audit hash from a previous seo_audit call' (100% coverage). The tool description only repeats 'by hash' without adding new syntax or format details, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool gets a full detailed SEO audit report by hash, enumerating the contents (check statuses, messages, recommendations, tips). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like seo_audit (which presumably creates audits) by focusing on retrieval of existing results.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use this tool: after a seo_audit call, using the returned hash. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for retrieving audit results.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.